LLM Notes: Supreme Court Judgment on Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) in IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion)

  The Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) judgment reshaped India’s capital punishment jurisprudence by introducing the "rarest of rare" doctrine. Here’s an analysis in IRAC format:

1. Whether the death penalty under Section 302 IPC (punishment for murder) and Section 354(3) CrPC (requiring "special reasons" for imposing death) violates Articles 14 (equality), 19 (fundamental freedoms), and 21 (right to life) of the Constitution.

2. Whether judicial discretion in sentencing leads to arbitrariness.

Print Page

Supreme Court: The power to impose a modified punishment providing for any specific term of incarceration or till the end of the convict's life as an alternate to death penalty, can be exercised only by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

 This Court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction

under Article 136 of the Constitution of India,

possesses the authority to scrutinize not only the

conviction of an accused but also the

appropriateness of the sentence imposed. As

articulated in the principles laid down in Swamy

Shraddananda 1, the power to impose or modify a

sentence within the prescribed framework of the

Penal Code is exclusively vested in the High Court

and this Court. The alternate punishment for

offences punishable by death, such as imprisonment

for a specific term exceeding 14 years or until the

natural life of the convict, remains within the judicial

conscience of this Court and the High Court. This

ensures that the gravity of the offence, the mitigating

and aggravating circumstances, and the possibility of

reformation are thoroughly assessed before

irrevocable sentences such as capital punishment

are affirmed. Therefore, the commutation of a death

sentence to imprisonment for the remainder of the

convict’s natural life, as an alternative to death, is

well within the judicial prerogative of this Court and

adheres to the constitutional mandate of ensuring

justice. 

105. We, therefore, reiterate that the power

derived from the Penal Code for any modified

punishment within the punishment provided for

in the Penal Code for such specified offences can

only be exercised by the High Court and in the

event of further appeal only by the Supreme

Court and not by any other court in this

country. To put it differently, the power to

impose a modified punishment providing for any

specific term of incarceration or till the end of

the convict's life as an alternate to death

penalty, can be exercised only by the High Court

and the Supreme Court and not by any other

inferior court.

 106. Viewed in that respect, we state that the

ratio laid down in Swamy Shraddananda (2)

[Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of

Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767 : (2009) 3 SCC

(Cri) 113] that a special category of sentence;

instead of death; for a term exceeding 14 years

and put that category beyond application of

remission is well founded and we answer the

said question in the affirmative. We are,

therefore, not in agreement with the opinion

expressed by this Court in Sangeet v. State of

Haryana [Sangeet v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2

SCC 452 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 611] that the

deprival of remission power of the appropriate

Government by awarding sentences of 20 or 25

years or without any remission as not

permissible is not in consonance with the law

and we specifically overrule the same.”

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.2220-2221 OF 2022

DEEN DAYAL TIWARI  Vs STATE OF

UTTAR PRADESH 

Citation: 2025 INSC 111.

Dated: JANUARY 16, 2025.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Capital Punishment An Exception; Even In Cases Of Multiple Murders, Avoid Death Sentence If There's Possibility Of Reform

Guided by the above facts, we must scrutinize not

only the nature of the offence but also the totality of

the offender’s circumstances. In the instant case,

while the offence is undoubtedly brutal, certain

mitigating factors, especially the Appellant’s lack of

criminal antecedents and his reported conduct in

prison, tilt the scales in favour of commutation. There

is no material demonstrating that he would remain a

perpetual threat to society or that he is beyond

reform. Indeed, the Probation Officer’s input and the

Superintendent of District Jail’s report show a

potentially reformable individual. Further, this Court

has consistently recognized that the imposition of

capital punishment is an exception and not the rule.

Even where multiple murders have been committed,

if there is evidence or at least a reasonable possibility

of reform, a lesser sentence must be preferred. {Para 21}

22. Weighing the totality of circumstances and

having regard to the legal principles discussed above,

we are of the view that while the crime is heinous and

deserves the highest degree of condemnation, it does

not meet the threshold of “the rarest of rare” so as to

irrevocably foreclose the option of life imprisonment.

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.2220-2221 OF 2022

DEEN DAYAL TIWARI  Vs STATE OF

UTTAR PRADESH 

Citation: 2025 INSC 111.

Dated: JANUARY 16, 2025.

Print Page

Examination of the Constitutionality of Capital Punishment in India

 The constitutionality of capital punishment in India has been a subject of extensive legal scrutiny and debate, primarily revolving around its alignment with fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court of India has addressed this issue through several landmark judgments, establishing a framework that permits the death penalty under specific circumstances while also emphasizing the need for a fair judicial process.

Historical Context and Legal Framework

The death penalty is codified within Indian law, particularly under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and governed by the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The legal discourse on capital punishment began with the case of Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973), where it was contended that capital punishment violated Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court upheld the death penalty, asserting that it did not infringe upon these rights when applied in accordance with established legal procedures.

Print Page

Understanding the Death Penalty: Constitutional Validity and Judicial Interpretations in India

Capital punishment, also called the death penalty, is the execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offence. It is the highest penalty awardable to an accused. 

 The constitutionality of the death penalty in India has been a subject of extensive legal scrutiny and debate, particularly in relation to fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court of India has delivered several landmark judgments that have shaped the legal landscape regarding capital punishment. Here is an overview of the constitutional framework surrounding the death penalty, along with key Supreme Court judgments.

Print Page

Supreme court guidelines about passing of death penalty

 It is clearly well settled that normal punishment for the offence Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code is life imprisonment but in a case where incident is of "rarest of rare cases" death sentence is to be imposed. It is equally well settled that only special facts and circumstances will warrant passing of death sentence and a just balance has to be struck between aggravating and mitigating circumstances, before the option is exercised. While referring to the earlier cases in the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0111/1980 : (1980) 2 SCC 684 and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0211/1983 : (1983) 3 SCC 470 further guidelines are summarised in the judgment in the case of Sushil Murmu MANU/SC/1020/2003 : (2004) 2 SCC 338. Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment read as under:

15. The following guidelines which emerge from Bachan Singh case [MANU/SC/0111/1980 : (1980) 2 SCC 684 : 1980 SCC (Cri.) 580] will have to be applied to the facts of each individual case where the question of imposition of death sentence arises: (Machhi Singh case [MANU/SC/0211/1983 : (1983) 3 SCC 470: 1983 SCC (Cri.) 681] SCC p. 489, para 38)

(i) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability.

(ii) Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the "offender" also require to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the "crime".

(iii) Life imprisonment is the Rule and death sentence is an exception. Death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only provided, the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances.

(iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised.

16. In rarest of rare cases when the collective conscience of the community is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty, death sentence can be awarded. The community may entertain such sentiment in the following circumstances:

(1) When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.

(2) When the murder is committed for a motive which evinces total depravity and meanness e.g. murder by a hired assassin for money or reward or a cold-blooded murder for gains of a person vis-à-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position or in a position of trust, or murder is committed in the course of betrayal of the motherland.

(3) When murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or minority community etc. is committed not for personal reasons but in circumstances which arouse social wrath, or in cases of "bride-burning" or "dowry deaths" or when murder is committed in order to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry once again or to marry another woman on account of infatuation.

(4) When the crime is enormous in proportion. For instance when multiple murders, say of all or almost all the members of a family or a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality, are committed.

(5) When the victim of the murder is an innocent child, or a helpless woman or an old or infirm person or a person vis-à-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position or a public figure generally loved and respected by the community.

22. It is clear from the above judgment that this Court has laid down the guidelines, which are to be considered, in a given case whether capital punishment should be imposed or not. There cannot be any hard and fast Rule for balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Each case has to be decided on its own merits. In a "rarest of rare case" capital punishment is to be imposed. To come to conclusion in each case aggravating and mitigating circumstances are to be considered. Further factors like, age of the Accused, possibility of reformation, gravity of the offence etc. are also to be kept in mind.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1416-1417 of 2017, 300-301 of 2018, 1418-1419 of 2017 and 298-299 of 2018

Decided On: 03.10.2019

 Ishwari Lal Yadav  Vs.  State of Chhattisgarh

Print Page

Whether court should award death sentence in case of rape or murder of child?

 On a detailed examination of precedents, it appears to us that it

would be totally imprudent to lay down an absolute principle of law that no

death sentence can be awarded in a case where conviction is based on

circumstantial evidence. Such a standard would be ripe for abuse by

seasoned criminals who always make sure to destroy direct evidence.

Further in many cases of rape and murder of children, the victims owing to

their tender age can put up no resistence. In such cases it is extremely

likely that there would be no ocular evidence. It cannot, therefore, be said

that in every such case nothwthstanding that the prosecution has proved

the case beyond reasonable doubt, the Court must not award capital

punishment for the mere reason that the offender has not been seen

committing the crime by an eye-witness. Such a reasoning, if applied

uniformally and mechanically will have devastating effects on the society

which is a dominant stakeholder in the administration of our criminal justice

system.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1523-1524 OF 2019

Ravishankar @ Baba Vishwakarma Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh 

SURYA KANT, J.

Dated:DATED : 03.10.2019
Citation: (2019) 9 SCC 689

Print Page